Uber Contract 'Gibberish', Says MP Investigating Gig Economy (theguardian.com)

A committee of MPs has lambasted Uber's contracts with drivers as "gibberish" and "almost unintelligible" as the company attempts to ensure its drivers remain self-employed. From a report: Frank Field, chair of the work and pensions select committee that is carrying out an investigation into the so-called gig economy, said: "Quite frankly the Uber contract is gibberish. They are well aware that many, if not most, of their drivers speak English as a second language -- they recently lost a court case trying to escape Transport for London's new English testing rules for private hire drivers -- yet their contract is almost unintelligible." [...] Publishing full details of Uber's contract terms, along with those for the takeaway courier firm Deliveroo and Amazon, Field said all three used some kind of "egregious clause" which attempted to prevent people challenging their "self-employed" designation, although neither Uber's nor Amazon's contract went as far as Deliveroo's, in the committee's view.

Comments

When will they learn?

[viperidaenz]

Law overrides contracts, less the law specifically states it can be contracted out of.

Perhaps there should be penalties for putting in clauses that contradict law. The companies put them in to scare people in to not exercising their legal rights, knowing they're not enforceable.

I wonder if it would be covered under existing "obtaining by deception" or "loss by deception" laws...

Re: When will they learn?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't let Roman.mir know you just dissed the contract.

He will fume in rage. Impotent, futile, rage.

Re: When will they learn?

[Khyber]

I haven't seen him since we last fucked him without lube for his admitting to age discrimination. Has he shown up since then?

Re: When will they learn?

[Anonymous Coward]

He's blathering something in this thread right now, though oddly mi has managed to be even more inane.

Re:When will they learn?

[rtb61]

There is a contract law that covers this situation. Basically if a contract is bad enough, they grab it, rip in into a thousand tiny pieces and bin it, figuratively speaking. Then the court works through proper remuneration for the service provided, generally speaking this will go against those who produced the contract. Similarly ambiguous or contradictory contact conditions are always meant to go against those who produced the contract, their contract, their responsibility for failure. However US courts are quite corrupt and anything can happen and unfortunately taking to the high court will mean loss against a major corporation no matter how fanciful the interpretation has to be by the high court (even to the point of adding whole clauses that do not exist, laughably corrupt) ie the constitution only applies to the actions of the federal government and major corporations are allowed to do what ever they want, now that's stupidly corrupt because that is on display to the rest of the world.

Re:When will they learn?

[whoever57]

Does the US have "MP"s? Other than Military Police?

Did you fail to notice that this is the UK?

For consumer contracts, UK law requires that they be 'plain and intelligible language'. But these are not consumer contracts.

Re: When will they learn?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're a funny one to show up, the resident unmedicated raving psychotic...

Re:When will they learn?

[Wrath0fb0b]

...unfortunately taking to the high court will mean loss against a major corporation no matter how fanciful the interpretation has to be by the high court

Actually, in the current term, businesses wins against non-business petitioners a little under 2/3rds of the time[1]. So your conception of "no matter how fanciful" is at least a few orders of magnitudes off of the facts.

[1] Epstein, Landes and Posner, How Business Fares in the Supreme Court, 97 Minn. L. Rev. 1431 (2013) PDF.

Re:When will they learn?

[houghi]

I was thinking the same. I could sign "I am self employed" and sign it. That does not make it legal in any way.

In fact, where I live is there is a clear employer, employee relationship, that that is how it will be treated, Most will not react on it, but many of the contractors would be, in fact, employees.

That means that if they go to court, they will win, regardless of what contract both parties signed. That would mean they would need to get the extra holiday pay and overtime pay and bonusses, if they are given to employees and foodt-checks and all the other things employees get.
On top of that, the company would need to pay the extra taxes.

This will be easier to prove the longer you are working as a contractor. Understand this is not the case for all contractors.

You can take my advice as a if I am a lawyer. I could even sign that I am one,but that does not make it valid. So contact one specialised in the matter if you want to know more.

Re: When will they learn?

[Anonymous Coward]

Most contracts are gibberish....the problem is the law and fucking Lawyers.

Re:When will they learn?

[zifn4b]

Law overrides contracts, less the law specifically states it can be contracted out of.

Perhaps there should be penalties for putting in clauses that contradict law. The companies put them in to scare people in to not exercising their legal rights, knowing they're not enforceable.

I wonder if it would be covered under existing "obtaining by deception" or "loss by deception" laws...

You mean like employment contracts? Good luck with that.

Re:When will they learn?

[Darinbob]

Generally the tactic is to assume most of the little parties won't take you to court, most of the rest will accept a hush-up settlement, and the few remaining who go to court is a reasonable business expense. So that 1/3 who win against large corporations are a small fragment of total parties affected by contracts.

And corporate lawyers aren't really so great from what I've seen. There is a lot of rote work by underworked and underpaid underlings. I've heard from engineering contractors relating stories about screw ups with legal. Such as "your contract says X", and when the actual contract is produced the company will say "oh, that must be the old contract, let me give you the new one and you can sign that", and then the company appears befuddled and confused when the contractor doesn't give in. Very often they seem to want everyone under the same umbrella and rules and aren't prepared to deal with exceptions. They will often just want to fire and re-hire someone as the easiest way to resolve contract disputes and get everyone into the same category.

Re:When will they learn?

[Altrag]

Member of Parliament. Approximately at the same level of government as an American member of Congress (though due to the forms of government being different, their powers and responsibilities don't exactly equate.)

Re: When will they learn?

[Khyber]

You mean the resident tax-record proven right person, you fucking nitwit?

Come back when you have an actual case, you street-corner nitwit.

Re:When will they learn?

[viperidaenz]

Employment law is supposed to be heavily in favour of the employee.

Today's stories paid for by ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Today's Uber stories brought to you from Uber's "no such thing as bad press" advertising department?

Re:Today's stories paid for by ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Just like Twitter, three ads on the front page in one day. Nothing happening at Microsoft I guess.

The Jig Is Up On The "Gig" Economy

[sexconker]

The jig is up on the "gig" economy. I can't wait for it to completely collapse. I hope the short-term rental economy goes next.

Re:The Jig Is Up On The "Gig" Economy

[roman_mir]

While you are hoping for the 'gig economy' to collapse aren't you noticing the collapse of the actual economy? The 'gig economy' is here as the last attempt of the free market to address the collapsing actual economy, the actual economy collapsing due to the actual destruction of individual liberties that this MP 'investigates' further now.

Re:The Jig Is Up On The "Gig" Economy

[barc0001]

> The 'gig economy' is here as the last attempt of the free market to address the collapsing actual economy

Dude, not even close. The 'gig' economy is a new generation of hucksters trying to figure out how to pay people even less to perform services on their behalf without having to bow to things like "regulation" and "laws", or have "employees" who do the actual service delivery to their "customers". The last two are in quotes because the Gig Economy actors pretend they are only facilitating a transaction between two external parties - 'Really !!! We have no skin in the game, we're just taking a modest commission hooking up these two people who want to exchange money for a service! We have no employees, there's no regulation that applies to us!'

Re:The Jig Is Up On The "Gig" Economy

[fluffernutter]

The gig economy is surviving because the economy is so bad that people are going to Uber in a last desperate attempt to survive. If the gig economy collapses than maybe the economy *is* getting better.

Re:The Jig Is Up On The "Gig" Economy

[roman_mir]

how to pay people even less to perform services on their behalf without having to bow to things like "regulation"

- what does it tell you? People are turning to these 'gigs' because they have bad jobs or no jobs, it also tells you that regulation prevents new businesses from appearing, only those who are going directly against the regulations even appear (and the rest depend on ad revenue from who exactly?)

It is so difficult to start and run a profitable business today that it is a large portion of any new businesses only exist because people are gambling on them, not because they are or even can ever be profitable businesses (ergo Twitter and Uber actually). The few businesses that will succed *will* drive other, more expensive and older businesses out of the market (how Amazon is surviving but so many retailers are failing today).

The complete lack of productivity on the part of individuals and new businesses is showing us something (if you are willing to look at it directly and honestly), it is showing us a dying economy and the economy is dying because it is now regulated and taxed to death.

Re:The Jig Is Up On The "Gig" Economy

[roman_mir]

If gig economy collapses due to lack of interest by people taking gigs, then you would have a point. That's not what will happen, instead of that the gig economy will collapse the good old fashion way: by regulations and taxes preventing it from existing. It will be sued out of existence, we can't allow any freedom so we can't have an economy at all, we already killed off most of the real economy and all that is left is 'gig'. Kill that off, it doesn't matter. Of-course gig economy cannot plug the holes, it's like trying to use a teaspoon to empty an ocean.

Re:The Jig Is Up On The "Gig" Economy

[Anonymous Coward]

So, you're saying that at one point, it was certain to make money starting a business? Google started out with no real source of revenue. For every Microsoft, there's a company like Be Inc. Even Apple only exists today because Gates loaned them money.

The efficiency of everything is being driven up. The economy, your car, your job, your computer, your fridge. If you don't have a job, it's because you haven't got the combination of skills, talents, and connections to survive anymore. In manufacturing (A dead end, I'm told by slashdot), if you can program automation, you have a job. You have other offers. You get all the overtime you want, and they don't try any shit about being exempt. And the thing is, most companies actually CAN'T get enough people. CNC operators, robotics programmers, automation integrators. Aren't enough. A company might hire an entire graduating class, getting enough people to have some folks who aren't on triple time at the end of the week, while their competitors are screwed. But a lot of the old manufacturing people, they didn't adapt. The jobs they mastered over 10 years are something we can teach robots in one. People who got useless degrees, or oversaturated ones (Journalism, English, Liberal Arts, I'm looking at you), are fucked, and each of those programs is larger than the Industrial Automation track.

Our economy is fucked, and our people are fucked, because we lied and said doing physical work, doing Manufacturing work, was dumb work, was a dead end, wasn't needed anymore. Don't blame it on regulations. Don't blame it on taxes. These people, and companies, can throw around huge amounts of money, and basically ignore tax code and regulations. Blame it squarely on the folks who lied and said that we could depend on book-work and Imaginary Property to fuel our economy.

Re:The Jig Is Up On The "Gig" Economy

[roman_mir]

It doesn't matter who was saying what, the manufacturing jobs didn't leave because people refused to work in it, it left because of regulations and taxes. Once it started leaving the talking heads on TV started doing what they are always doing: justifying the situation and the government actions that the situation is developing under.

Re:The Jig Is Up On The "Gig" Economy

[haruchai]

"the manufacturing jobs didn't leave because people refused to work in it, it left because of regulations and taxes"
It left because greedy fucks who were doing quite well decided to go somewhere where they could treat foreign workers the same or worse than they'd treated domestic workers of previous generations.

Re: The Jig Is Up On The "Gig" Economy

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes the right to exploit for the greater good. How quaint.

Re:The Jig Is Up On The "Gig" Economy

[fluffernutter]

They're being sued because they broke the law. They always had the opportunity to discuss changing the law. If they had sent all their lobbyists to accomplish that, then it would have turned out better for everyone. But their business plan was always to disrupt and work around the law. So they reap what they sow.

Re:The Jig Is Up On The "Gig" Economy

[Wrath0fb0b]

I think you're missing something important, which is the value of being able to work whenever you damn-well feel like it and take a vacation whenever you damn-well feel like it and not be accountable to anyone else's schedule.

Let's do an experiment, take a worker in any other sector: retail/food/engineering/medicine, you name it. Now tell that person that they are going to move to a system where they can chose when to go to work and when to leave, with 15-minute granularity and no advance notice whatsoever. Of course, their wages will scale only with the time they actually spend working. Now ask them what that sort of flexibility would be worth to them.

Want to take the afternoon off to watch your nephew's baseball game -- it costs you exactly one afternoon of wages.
Want to take the weekend to attend your college friend's wedding -- it costs you exactly one weekend of wages.
Want to sign out of your job for 3 months while you backpack SE Asia and then come back and continue like nothing happened -- it costs you exactly 3 months of wages.

I'm quite fortunate that my boss is understanding, and I could probably do the above if we weren't swamped with work and if it wasn't too overlapped with my teammates (6-person team, so 2 of us leaving for the same week would be bad but not fatal). Most workers, especially in retail/food sectors closest in wage level to Uber can't dream of it. If your boss at Starbucks says you work on Saturday, your sister's birthday party will just have to wait (or you can swap).

Hell, even with my understanding boss and cushy job, I would absolutely love an arrangement where I make my pro-rated salary for every week (!) I want to work and can take unlimited pro-rated vacation without a single thought.

Re:The Jig Is Up On The "Gig" Economy

[Narcocide]

Everything about your chain of logic here is sound except the last step; you fail basic conceptualization of the situation if you don't realize that manufacturing jobs only left for foreign shores because of removal of regulations that restricted off-shoring such work. Frankly this is such a fundamentally inaccurate view of reality that, considering the relative coherency of the rest of your argument, I'm left with only the conclusion that you're either a paid shill or just an remorselessly evil asshat. Mind you, I could still be wrong. There's no reason these two states of being have to be mutually exclusive.

Re:The Jig Is Up On The "Gig" Economy

[roman_mir]

I like greedy people who build stuff, run businesses, manufacture something, produce something, move something, do anything as long as it is needed by the people (as should be obvious from profits) and as long as the business has nothing to do with any government and does not use government to oppress others.

I am happy for the people who found a way to avoid oppression by moving their businesses somewhere far away from those who want to oppress them. You are saying "greedy fucks" while talking about people that produce but you are not saying "greedy fucks" while talking about people who want to take away from those who produce. This shows a certain ... level of agenda that has nothing to do with the word or concept of greed, it has to do with the concept of entitlement to other people's productive life.

Re:The Jig Is Up On The "Gig" Economy

[roman_mir]

Well, you are wrong. Manufacturing jobs left because the money of the system, within which they used to operate became obviously worthless once the government dropped the pretence of the money being backed by anything that can be produced by work as opposed to by the will of the collective.

Once the money itself is compromised that way there are 2 things to consider: why did it get to be compromised and what is the perspective once it is compromised?

The money got compromised because over time the State became fundamentally dishonest and oppressive. The politicians got used to promising everything to the masses for the votes while selling the power of oppression to the highest bidders.

The perspective is this: once the money is compromised the past behaviour that necessitate this destruction of the money itself will accelerate and will take down the rest of the economy.

Inflation is the destruction of economy, inflation that is caused by the compromised money. Once the money became compromised nothing could stop manufacturing and other real jobs from leaving, that was it.

Re:The Jig Is Up On The "Gig" Economy

[roman_mir]

The law does not deserve any respect, why shouldn't it be broken? The law stopped deserving respect once the law became compromised. The law is not based on a set of strict rules (the Constitution), instead it is open to interpretation to the benefit of those currently in power and those buying the said power.

The law today does not warrant respect.

Re: The Jig Is Up On The "Gig" Economy

[Anonymous Coward]

This shows a certain ... level of agenda that has nothing to do with the word or concept of greed, it has to do with the concept of entitlement to other people's productive life.

Ah, so you're back to talking about Uber now.

Re:The Jig Is Up On The "Gig" Economy

[Anonymous Coward]

Brilliant: you applaud people avoiding the oh-so-oppressive US government by moving manufacturing to ... China.

We couldn't make you up. Your willlingness to reach absurd conclusions because that's where your ideology takes you is bold, I'll give you that. Also really fucking stupid too. But hey, we don't have higher expectations where good old Roman_Mir is concerned.

Re:The Jig Is Up On The "Gig" Economy

[shilly]

Actually, no. Many gig economy companies will charge their staff a fee for finding replacement cover.

https://www.theguardian.com/bu...

Re:The Jig Is Up On The "Gig" Economy

[psmoot]

It doesn't matter who was saying what, the manufacturing jobs didn't leave because people refused to work in it, it left because of regulations and taxes.

More nuanced is manufacturing left because they found people in developing countries who are willing to do the job for less than people in rich countries. People in rich countries refused to work for very low wages, people in poorer countries were willing to work for very low wages. Why they were willing is another issue entirely (the low wages beat their other alternatives, e.g. subsistence farming).

Taxes and regulations also figure in. It's a pain to work across continents and countries but if it's a ton cheaper, companies will do it.

Re:The Jig Is Up On The "Gig" Economy

[psmoot]

The jig is up on the "gig" economy. I can't wait for it to completely collapse. I hope the short-term rental economy goes next.

I think people miss the point of the gig economy. The big win isn't that you're hiring contractors with unconventional hours. The win is you don't have to raise capital to start your business. The gig employees bring their own capital with them. Uber doesn't have to invest in a fleet of cars, Airbnb doesn't have to buy a lot of real estate, and so forth. It makes it much, much cheaper to run the company because your capital outlay is so much lower. You can also grow much faster than a traditionally financed company.

It kind of reminds me of the revolution which came with franchising. Prior to that, the company had to raise capital to build each outlet. Enter franchises and now each franchise owner brings their own cash. You get access to a much larger pool of cash. It's why franchised businesses are everywhere.

Re:The Jig Is Up On The "Gig" Economy

[Anonymous Coward]

I've actually used AirBnB from both sides, and although I'd agree it needs some more regulation I think it can be a good thing.

The first time, I got a few weeks in a nice room in a city I could never afford to stay in, and my host got some much-needed rental income.

Second time around I was let down by a flatmate leaving suddenly and without paying their back rent, and was able to make enough renting out their room for a couple of weekends to cover me until I could get someone in legitimately. I was technically in violation of my lease doing that, and I felt kind of bad about it, but the alternative was not paying rent myself.

Both examples are of rooms in a house shared with the occupier; I think it's an important distinction. There should be a mechanism to short-term-sublet the property you live in - the current situation is that it's generally legal to let someone stay with you, so long as they don't pay you, which is just stupid and unenforceable. It should be a simple matter to rent out a spare room; AirBnB helps with the logistics, but it would be nice for both parties to have legal clarity regarding the arrangements.

On the other hand, people who buy up property just to AirBnB it should have to have the same permits and zoning as other commercial businesses. There are places in some cities where entire blocks of flats have just been subdivided into slum-level housing and let out at a huge margin. It's not a spare room at that point; it's a business, and should be treated like one.

Re:The Jig Is Up On The "Gig" Economy

[Anonymous Coward]

As someone who grew up in Mahoning County (just north of the tip of where the Ohio river crosses OH/PA border) Which was responsible for just over 40% of the WORLD's steel production (along with Shanango valley(next valley over on PA side of border)) for a long time right during/after WWII.... and the reason they stopped producing steel was b/c of dumping from China and that is it... not because of 'tax' or 'regulation' and if you believe that then you are doing nothing but showing your ignorance. US Steel production was NOT taxed out of existence(at the scale it as) it was b/c of China _paying_ for its steel to be cheaper in a bid (mind you illegal, but no one wanted to stand up to them) to fight it...

Politicians only used it as a talking point... and did nothing about it (One of the very few "both sides" issues, Dems at least 'tried' in early 80s, but Reagan/GOP shot that down... but Dems didn't really keep it an issue, so I blame them just as much on this issue.

Re:The Jig Is Up On The "Gig" Economy

[jeremyp]

The UK has never had regulations that say things in general have to be manufactured in the UK. I can't believe it is any different for the USA. Companies have moved manufacturing jobs abroad because it is cheaper to do it there.

Re:The Jig Is Up On The "Gig" Economy

[Nidi62]

>Let's do an experiment, take a worker in any other sector: retail/food/engineering/medicine, you name it. Now tell that person that they are going to move to a system where they can chose when to go to work and when to leave, with 15-minute granularity and no advance notice whatsoever. Of course, their wages will scale only with the time they actually spend working. Now ask them what that sort of flexibility would be worth to them.

Want to take the afternoon off to watch your nephew's baseball game -- it costs you exactly one afternoon of wages. Want to take the weekend to attend your college friend's wedding -- it costs you exactly one weekend of wages. Want to sign out of your job for 3 months while you backpack SE Asia and then come back and continue like nothing happened -- it costs you exactly 3 months of wages.

I'm quite fortunate that my boss is understanding, and I could probably do the above if we weren't swamped with work and if it wasn't too overlapped with my teammates (6-person team, so 2 of us leaving for the same week would be bad but not fatal). Most workers, especially in retail/food sectors closest in wage level to Uber can't dream of it. If your boss at Starbucks says you work on Saturday, your sister's birthday party will just have to wait (or you can swap).

Hell, even with my understanding boss and cushy job, I would absolutely love an arrangement where I make my pro-rated salary for every week (!) I want to work and can take unlimited pro-rated vacation without a single thought.

That's fine. I'll stick with my 5 weeks of actual PAID vacation (currently 3 weeks vacation with 2 weeks of paid personal time off that you accrue every year and can bank, earning 1 more week of vacation this year and 1 more week in 5 years) that I can already take any time I want because I don't have bosses that are dicks and my coworkers can cover the slack (although if you took a whole month off at a time you would be kind of an asshole, they can handle a week or two at a time). Oh yes, and this job is a full time job, pays a livable salary, and gives benefits. Why would I trade that for the "freedom" of a gig job?

Re:The Jig Is Up On The "Gig" Economy

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahh, I see you found the compulsory copy of Ayn Rand that all college sophomores are compelled to take to bed and hump futilely when they run out of socks.

Re:The Jig Is Up On The "Gig" Economy

[kilfarsnar]

I am happy for the people who found a way to avoid oppression by moving their businesses somewhere far away from those who want to oppress them.

You think it's business being oppressed? They move their manufacturing to third world countries with lax labor and environmental protection laws, so they can make an extra billion on top of their 10 billion in revenue (note: numbers pulled right from my ass, but you get the idea), while buying off, I mean lobbying congress people to enact business friendly trade deals, and you think they're oppressed. Got it.

You are saying "greedy fucks" while talking about people that produce but you are not saying "greedy fucks" while talking about people who want to take away from those who produce. This shows a certain ... level of agenda that has nothing to do with the word or concept of greed, it has to do with the concept of entitlement to other people's productive life.

I'm sorry, who's doing the producing here? Are the top level managers, owners and stock holders doing the producing? Or is it the ground level workers who are doing the producing? You know, the ones whose wages are under constant downward pressure due the greedy fucks needing a bigger bonus and higher stock price.

Look, I know not all business is like that; not even every multinational. But the fact is that almost all of the economic gains of the past decade have gone to those who are already the richest. They are not being oppressed, nor strangled by regulation. They are doing quite well. It is the people at the bottom, like Uber drivers, who are getting the shaft. They are the ones who are to be protected by those pesky regulations. One of the functions of government should be to protect the weak from the powerful. We seem to have forgotten that.

Re:The Jig Is Up On The "Gig" Economy

[kilfarsnar]

I think you're missing something important, which is the value of being able to work whenever you damn-well feel like it and take a vacation whenever you damn-well feel like it and not be accountable to anyone else's schedule.

Let's do an experiment, take a worker in any other sector: retail/food/engineering/medicine, you name it. Now tell that person that they are going to move to a system where they can chose when to go to work and when to leave, with 15-minute granularity and no advance notice whatsoever. Of course, their wages will scale only with the time they actually spend working. Now ask them what that sort of flexibility would be worth to them.

Want to take the afternoon off to watch your nephew's baseball game -- it costs you exactly one afternoon of wages. Want to take the weekend to attend your college friend's wedding -- it costs you exactly one weekend of wages. Want to sign out of your job for 3 months while you backpack SE Asia and then come back and continue like nothing happened -- it costs you exactly 3 months of wages.

I'm quite fortunate that my boss is understanding, and I could probably do the above if we weren't swamped with work and if it wasn't too overlapped with my teammates (6-person team, so 2 of us leaving for the same week would be bad but not fatal). Most workers, especially in retail/food sectors closest in wage level to Uber can't dream of it. If your boss at Starbucks says you work on Saturday, your sister's birthday party will just have to wait (or you can swap).

Hell, even with my understanding boss and cushy job, I would absolutely love an arrangement where I make my pro-rated salary for every week (!) I want to work and can take unlimited pro-rated vacation without a single thought.

The difference is right here in your post. A job that you can walk away from with little consequence or inconvenience is a job in which you have little value or responsibility. You personally can't just do that because you are on a team, with responsibilities and deliverables. You are skilled and are probably well paid. I would like to have more flexibility too. But I can, with some notice, take time off without giving up any money. I don't have to choose between watching my son's baseball game and making money. And I make enough money that I can go do fun things in my spare time.

In short, any job that you can walk away from at a moment's notice is a job in which you are easily replaceable. Those jobs tend to not pay very well. Considering the way America is set up, I'd rather have a higher paying job with less flexibility.

Re:The Jig Is Up On The "Gig" Economy

[kilfarsnar]

The law does not deserve any respect, why shouldn't it be broken? The law stopped deserving respect once the law became compromised. The law is not based on a set of strict rules (the Constitution), instead it is open to interpretation to the benefit of those currently in power and those buying the said power.

The law today does not warrant respect.

The law is so much more than the Constitution. The Constitution provides a framework for the delegation and separation of powers between the branches of the Federal government and between the Federal and State governments. There are no regulations in the Constitution. Most laws and regulations have nothing to do with Constitutionality.

Re:The Jig Is Up On The "Gig" Economy

[tehcyder]

The law today does not warrant respect.

Let me guess, you probably still "respect" the laws about not stealing or murdering though?

The law is not based on a set of strict rules

Real life is, indeed, more complicated than a "Hello World" program.

Re:The Jig Is Up On The "Gig" Economy

[fluffernutter]

What is it with these people? You are not entitled to pick the laws. That's the point of the laws. Without laws there is only anarchy. It is really that simple.

Re:The Jig Is Up On The "Gig" Economy

[fluffernutter]

Here is the problem. Governments have been sitting on their asses way too long. The generation coming in probably hasn't seen truly effective government, and it didn't look like it was getting any better so that is why we got Trump. He was a hail mary pass. Why has it taken so long for them to figure this out and what is keeping them from making a decision on what is best for most people here and allowing that. I don't know if I have a solution other than to say that government should be more effective at addressing the needs of the people.

Re:The Jig Is Up On The "Gig" Economy

[Anonymous Coward]

In the UK, the manufacturing jobs left because the city traders saw it was a nice little earner to buy up high-tech british manufacturing companies, sell off the equipment to the Far East, liquidate the private pension schemes and give the money to themselves as bonuses. Then when there is a trade deficit running into billions, they call for austerity measures to keep salaries down.

Re:The Jig Is Up On The "Gig" Economy

[ogdenk]

Exactly, there is a reason most IT work in my area is outsourced to "consulting companies" who pay pennies on the dollar for overworked 1099 "subcontractors" who get screwed out of benefits and overtime pay. And if convenient and feasible they'll outsource everything they can to India and use 1099 monkeys here as a pair of cheap hands.

There is a reason I bailed on the entire field.

Re:The Jig Is Up On The "Gig" Economy

[Wrath0fb0b]

I mean, your excellent salaried job is excellent.

Now consider people in the same wage range as Uber drivers -- baristas at Starbucks, retail clerks, administrative assistants, office managers. Not quite as low as fast-food but also not excellent salaried jobs like yours.

Those people might in fact value the same kind of flexibility you have, and so far we have not been able to create working structures for them that provide anything like it. The idea that you could drop in to for your retail job whenever you feel like it is absurd.

So it doesn't seem like too much of a stretch to think that they would want what you already have.

Re:The Jig Is Up On The "Gig" Economy

[Wrath0fb0b]

That's 100% correct.

I think the point is that, if you're going to work a lower-wage job that's easily replaceable by anyone else that knows how to drive (or whatever else the next gig economy thing is), the least society could do in terms of non-monetary compensation is to offer you the flexibility that we can afford by having a huge pool of replacements. At this wage

In other words, it's not enough to just look at wages. I'm well-paid but there are other non-monterary components of my jobs.

Re:The Jig Is Up On The "Gig" Economy

[barc0001]

I'm not sure where you live, but where I live office managers and administrative assistants are generally on salary and have benefits, paid vacation etc.

And even the retail clerks and baristas bank vacation pay by law. They may not get dental and vision care, etc but they get paid for taking their time off.

Re:The Jig Is Up On The "Gig" Economy

[Altrag]

Its the "cheaper" bit that's the problem. Labor of course has always been cheaper in (certain) foreign countries, but that's compensated for by import tariffs. If those import tariffs are removed (or even significantly decreased) by trade deals, then suddenly manufacturers are free to relocate as they see fit with little or no detriment.

That's Trump's big argument for renegotiating NAFTA. He figures that if he shuts down much of NAFTA and can re-impose high tariffs on things like automobile imports then manufacturing would return to the US.

And he's right in a sense, but fails to see the bigger picture. Sure, a bunch of GM employees get screwed but at the same time the cost for a car goes down for everybody. Or in other words, do you want to pay an extra $5k for a car manufactured in Michigan over an identical one manufactured in Mexico? "Made in the US" might be worth a bit -- an extra $1 on your $4 bag of peas or even $10 on that $100 sweater.. but when we start getting into the big ticket items where even a small percentage increase can be a couple thousand dollars, the question becomes a little harder to answer for a lot of people.

Re:The Jig Is Up On The "Gig" Economy

[haruchai]

"avoid oppression by moving their businesses somewhere far away from those who want to oppress them"

Wow. Just wow. Nice to the the downtrodden 0.1% have such devoted fans. How ever would they survive?

Re:The Jig Is Up On The "Gig" Economy

[starblazer]

Add the fact that communication got really fast and really cheap. Now you could talk and deal with China in pretty much real time versus what used to be a week for FedEx to get that packet of schematics over there.

Re:The Jig Is Up On The "Gig" Economy

[Narcocide]

Mind you, I could still be wrong. There's no reason these two states of being have to be mutually exclusive.

...

Well, you are wrong.

I just wanted to make sure everyone else was following along with this conversation.

Statist assault on free enterprise

[mi]

A committee of MPs has lambasted Uber's contracts with drivers as "gibberish" and "almost unintelligible" as the company attempts to ensure its drivers remain self-employed.

WTF is it any concern of the government, what sort of contract free citizens of able body and sound mind enter into with each other?

"egregious clause" which attempted to prevent people challenging their "self-employed" designation

Ah, I get it. After willingly entering into the contract, some drivers are tempted to demand more, and the politicians — always greedy for more taxe... , err, wealth to spread around — are happy to "fight" for them...

Pay no attention to the green men from taxi companies either...

What's hilarious is that Uber is hiring these Left wing celebrities to wage its PR war — Obama's hacks and now Adriana Huffington... Just imagine, what these people would have been saying on the matter, if they weren't bought and paid for by Uber already...

Re:Statist assault on free enterprise

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF is it any concern of the government, what sort of contract free citizens of able body and sound mind enter into with each other?

It's of every concern what sort of contracts its people are being duped into, given that the entire singular purpose of Government is to protect its _people_. (Not artificial entities).

Re: Statist assault on free enterprise

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF is it any concern of the government, what sort of contract free citizens of able body and sound mind enter into with each other?

Government is expected to enforce contracts, thus it is required to determine what it will allow itself to do.

Re:Statist assault on free enterprise

[sjames]

You give the government license to weigh in on a contract as soon as you rely on the courts to help you enforce it.

Re:Statist assault on free enterprise

[mi]

You give the government license to weigh in on a contract as soon as you rely on the courts to help you enforce it.

Frankly, I don't see, how the two things are related in the slightest. A judge may think a contract was unfair (or stupid), but it is still valid — as long as entered into willingly and in good faith by both sides...

Re: Statist assault on free enterprise

[Anonymous Coward]

So the government shouldn't try to regulate the economy or contracts? How about if someone puts a $100 in for a kick starter to murder you? Hirer and hiree freely enter into it, so you should be fine with that.

If not, you are a hypocrite yet again.
You want freedom for you, "me me me me" says mi.

Re: Statist assault on free enterprise

[Anonymous Coward]

A judge may think a contract was unfair (or stupid), but it is still valid â" as long as entered into willingly and in good faith by both sides...

You just implied two conditions of unfairness, which among others, judges use to invalidate contracts.

Kinda destroying your own arguments here.

Re:Statist assault on free enterprise

[Anonymous Coward]

> A judge may think a contract was unfair (or stupid), but it is still valid — as long as entered into willingly and in good faith by both sides...

Those are precisely what a judge often has to rule on. Whether one side deceived the other, and *whether one side failed to actually follow the contract*, are critical. And what happens when you fail to perform your side of the contract, as doubtless someone so foolish as to say "I don't see how the two things are related in the slightest" doubtless does as a matter of course, mostly through self-serving ignorance?

Re:Statist assault on free enterprise

[kilfarsnar]

WTF is it any concern of the government, what sort of contract free citizens of able body and sound mind enter into with each other?

Here's a better question: is someone in poverty truly free?

Re:Statist assault on free enterprise

[kilfarsnar]

You give the government license to weigh in on a contract as soon as you rely on the courts to help you enforce it.

Frankly, I don't see, how the two things are related in the slightest. A judge may think a contract was unfair (or stupid), but it is still valid — as long as entered into willingly and in good faith by both sides...

Oh, so you do think the courts should be able to weigh in on a contract.

Re: Statist assault on free enterprise

[Anonymous Coward]

In the US, judges cannot invalidate unfair or stupid contracts unless they are "unconscionable", which apparently imposes a far higher standard than the UK. (Higher standard in the legal sense, meaning it's more difficult to take action.)

It is very difficult to invalidate contracts in the US, which is one reason why corporations are out of control and abusive. They have free reign with their money and lawyers to an extent that our European brethren do not tolerate.

Combined with comparatively toothless protection of consumers and labor, I expect most Europeans would be appalled by the American economic climate. This also explains the rabid anti-corporate sentiment seen in some American subcultures.

Re:Statist assault on free enterprise

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody is "truly free". We did not create ourselves or the universe that we inhabit. We are all bound to the constraints of this world in which we had no say. How is this a "better question"? Seems more off-topic to me.

Re:Statist assault on free enterprise

[sjames]

Consider, without the government, there would be no such thing as a corporation in the first place.

Moving past that, the public good is to be the paramount consideration of government. So contracts against the public good may not be enforced. That's why you cannot be forced to commit a crime to fulfill a contract, even if it wasn't a crime when the contract was signed. It's also why contracts of adhesion have limited enforcement and vague language interpreted in the favor of the other party.

You spoke of willingness and good faith. Thus, a judge must consider the inherently coercive nature of employment when there are few employers and many people out of work. Further, an attempt to treat someone as an employee but with the lesser rights of a contractor, contrary to employment law is not good faith.

mod Up

[Anonymous Coward]

else to be an survive at alCl

Free enterprise assault on liberty

[dbIII]

WTF is it any concern of the government, what sort of contract free citizens of able body and sound mind enter into with each other?

Since government is what we have when a lot of people banded together to avoid being the prey of petty warlords it is very much the business of government to step in when it appears some are preying on others. Hence the attitudes of governments to crime and onerous contracts - it's illegal to sell yourself into slavery and dealing with lesser exploitation is also a core business of a government.

Of course you knew that "mi", but you just want to pull a fast one and justify all exploitation by pretending that government is something "other" instead of for the people and of the people.

Re:Free enterprise assault on liberty

[mi]

Since government is what we have when a lot of people banded together to avoid being the prey of petty warlords

Warlords relied on violence — living (and dying) by the proverbial sword.

it's illegal to sell yourself into slavery

No, it is not, actually. What is illegal is to hold anyone as slave (except as punishment for a crime) — contract or not. But Uber is not doing anything of the kind, the contracts are "at will", breakable by either side. No, what these drivers now want — with encouragement of anti-Uber forces (who choose to ignore Lyft doing the same things), is to go back — and be treated as employees to be entitled to various benefits. Retroactively.

dealing with lesser exploitation is also a core business of a government

No, it is not. There is nothing wrong with "exploitation" per se — indeed, every employee is being "exploited".

Of course you knew that "mi"

I knew, that Statists like yourself — hold these lies to be self-evident, yes. And called them out on it...

Re: Free enterprise assault on liberty

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it is not, actually.What is illegal is to hold anyone as slave

18 USC 1590-92 are more extensive than you realize. And 1594 applies to attempts as well.

(except as punishment for a crime)

You misplaced the comma, didn't you?

Re:Free enterprise assault on liberty

[dbIII]

Warlords relied on violence — living (and dying) by the proverbial sword.

Look up "Pinkerton" to remind yourself why it's still a relevant comparison and what governments are protecting us from in the workplace. “You could not run a coal company without machine guns" - Richard Mellon, 1925, is a quote that is also relevant.

I knew, that Statists like yourself

I do indeed prefer a State to a Kingdom or Oligarchy.

Re:Free enterprise assault on liberty

[mi]

Look up "Pinkerton" to remind yourself why it's still a relevant comparison and what governments are protecting us from in the workplace. “You could not run a coal company without machine guns"

Machine guns are still required — only it is the government's police, not "Pinkerton", that use them. And it is far from obvious, this is an improvement — for any abuse by the Pinkerton employees, a BLM agitator could list 5 abuses by cops (before realizing, you and him are on the same Socialist side of the greater debate).

Either way, be it the warlords of the dark ages or armed enforcers of the modernity, the distinct attribute is violence. And Uber manifestly does not use it — nor is it even alleged to use it.

I do indeed prefer a State to a Kingdom or Oligarchy.

?? This is not even wrong...

Re:Free enterprise assault on liberty

[dbIII]

That is not even a sentence, I'm not entirely sure what you are saying you whining little cheerleader for oligarchs. Why do you hate America so much? Do you really prefer what the Russians have done recently instead?

Re:Free enterprise assault on liberty

[dbIII]

are on the same Socialist

Ah yes, I forgot that democracy and the ideals of a Republic are "socialist" now. We should just follow "might is right" should we?

Re:Free enterprise assault on liberty

[mi]

That is not even a sentence

Of course, it is! It has a subject ("This") and a verb ("is").

I'm not entirely sure what you are saying you whining little cheerleader

You, dufus, attempted to contrast "State" (government) vs. "Kingdom" or "Oligarchy" — not realizing, Monarchy et. al are still governments. That's why I closed with the (perfectly complete) sentence: "This is not even wrong".

Re: Free enterprise assault on liberty

[Anonymous Coward]

for any abuse by the Pinkerton employees, a BLM agitator could list 5 abuses by cops

Gosh, for every abuse by an entity barely over 150 years old, you're looking at five thousand years of history across the world, and expecting us to what, shudder at your lack of mathematical ability?

Mi, you are terrible at this, even more so than usual. Have you eaten recently? Do you need a Snickers?

Re:Free enterprise assault on liberty

[kilfarsnar]

No, it is not, actually. What is illegal is to hold anyone as slave (except as punishment for a crime) — contract or not. But Uber is not doing anything of the kind, the contracts are "at will", breakable by either side.

In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges.

Re:Free enterprise assault on liberty

[kilfarsnar]

Either way, be it the warlords of the dark ages or armed enforcers of the modernity, the distinct attribute is violence. And Uber manifestly does not use it — nor is it even alleged to use it.

You think the only type of violence is physical? Uber recently increased their percentage of each ride while dropping the price. I'm not saying that's violence necessarily. But it's kind of a crappy thing to do, and the drivers have no say about it.

If the conservatives had their way

[Anonymous Coward]

If the conservatives had their way, then ALL companies would be like that.

You know, small governement, little to no legislation, the free market will fix itself and bla bla bla.

Too bad neocons, libertarianism has already been tried. It was called feudalism, corporatism and fascism. And every time it was a disaster.

Re:If the conservatives had their way

[Altrag]

While I'm certainly no hard core conservative, your examples are.. not even misleading they're just flat out wrong.

Feudalism? As in when local warlords continually fight over chunks of land and the peasants are little better than slaves? Pretty sure there's not much freedom in a market that's basically "give me all your stuff or I'll kill you and your family and maybe your entire village."

Corporatism isn't even a real thing. Its a derogatory term for our current system since it sometimes (well OK, often) seems like corporate lobbyists have more power over government than voters.

And fascism? Which again amounts to the central authority controlling basically everything through threat of force, and there's very little freedom involved, market or otherwise.

If you're going to go on a political rant, please at least try to use words that mean what you think they mean.

Something I don't get

[rsilvergun]

is why they even bother? I don't have a lot of faith that any of this is a serious attempt to reign Uber in. They're blatantly flaunting laws about employment. If anyone really cared they'd have shut down Uber a long time ago.

My only question is: I've watched about a dozen of these "Gig Economy" companies get shut down because they were obviously employers. Uber's doing the exact same thing. How are they surviving? Are the CEOs/Investors just that much better connected?

I have an idea

[slashmydots]

If you don't understand a contract, find a way to understand it or don't sigh it. Sounds like they're just being lazy and greedy instead of doing things the proper way.

Re:I have an idea

[Cederic]

Or gleefully sign away, knowing that under the law it's unenforceable.

Given that contracts are often discussed at great length in court cases by trained legal professionals I think it's reasonable to suggest that nobody can understand a contract, and so you're effectively saying that nobody should ever sign one.

I'm fairly sure I don't correctly interpret multiple legal terms in contracts that I sign. I avoid having to pay thousands of pounds to lawyers every time I sign up for a new TV, telephone, power or other service by relying on the basic 'common sense' aspect of common law. It works, you should try it.

Well that's one thing that MPs are expert on

[Chrisq]

Well that's one thing that MPs are expert on: Giberish

Uber is ethically unfit as a business

[Anonymous Coward]

From my short time with Uber I realized their ethics are at zero and they pride themselves at skirting regulations and laws. It's almost an obsession with them to try and out play outside the rules. Case in point is current litigation Waymo has against their former engineer and Uber. Can't wait until Uber totally self destructs which is almost a given.